Howdy, MK9;
You wrote, "Will abuse and/or torture of prisoners make us as bad as the enemy that murdered 3,000 innocents on Sept. 11? No, but it won't be "the right thing" either."
Me: Depends on the type of torture and abuse, don't you think?
You: "How do you accurately distinguish between the prisoners who fall in your categories?"
Me: Actually, that's really quite easy. When these guys are picked up, one can document the circumstances under which they were apprehended/captured. You take photographs and fingerprints. And, if in doubt, you err on the side of caution and go with no torture. (shrug)
You: "If a mistake is made, and a bystander picked up for "being in the wrong place, at the wrong time" is tortured how can we legitimately claim to be the world's champion of freedom and human rights?"
Me: Like I said, if in doubt, we err on the side of playing nice.
You: "Besides which, the Geneva Convention has some very strong words to say about the mistreatment of captured combatants and detained non-combatants. The atrocities committed by terrorists do not justify retaliation against innocents."
Me: I couln't agree more - with your last sentence anyway. Do the Geneva Accords apply to terrorists I wonder?
You: "Those are largely ethical objections to your idea. Perhaps there are some who would prefer a "Realpolitik" critique as well:"
"(1) Retaliation against innocents and the abuse/torture of those in American custody only serves to inflame Iraqis and bolster terrorist/insurgent recruitment. Oops."
Me: This is why I say we don't retaliate against innocents. I have never suggested nor implied it.
You: "(2) Information extracted under even the threat of torture has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable. We get a "hot tip" after a few hours with some hot pokers, call in an air strike, and kill a dozen Iraqi civilians. See (1), above. Oops."
Me: So, what is your source for "repeatedly shown to be unreliable"? I can cite you some very specific cases from special ops friends of mine who were able to act on information extracted under torture that was EXTREMELY reliable. Do you think it's an accident that Afghanistan has been so quiet considering it was the home base of the Taliban for years and now that we have only a skeleton force there now?
Let me assure you in no uncertain terms that some people talk very freely when they see what has happened to others who have not. And they also tell the truth too when they are threatened with the statement "If you are lying and we find out about it, you will be very sorry."
Now, did my Special Ops buds do the torturing? Nope. Didn't need to. There were plenty of Afghanis who suffered under the Taliban and Al Qaeda who were more than willing to even up some scores, and my buds were more than willing to act on that information.
But again, please note that I have never supported the notion of torturing the "wrong place wrong time" guy, not the "typical grunt". There are plenty of truly bad hombres enough, that one doesn't need to torture the others. (shrug)
You: "I couldn't agree more with this statement (do the right thing). We're in Iraq, and we're likely to be there for some time to come. We must behave with scrupulous, universal and tireless respect for the human rights of the Iraqi people or we will undermine our efforts."
"Some have argued that terrorists operate under no such restrictions, and they are 100% correct. That does not mean we should "take the gloves off" and become the brutal conquerers that the terrorists believe us to be. Our hands are tied, and that sucks (particularly for our brave soldiers on the ground over there)."
Me: What I'd like you to understand, is that we have the capability to decide where and when we keep the gloves on, and where we take them off. There are times we can take them off, and I think we should. But again, my position has always been to err on the side of good will.
Also, to me, not all torture is equal. There is a distinct difference between sleep depriving a fellow for days straight, and sawing his fingers off an inch at a time. There are literally hundreds of ways of making people "very uncomfortable" and not even a large fraction of them entail permanent damage. One should be as creative as possible, and again, err on the side of "playing nice" if in doubt.
You: "If we are unwilling to accept the necessary cost in American lives that this restraint demands, then maybe we should carefully consider if "Adventures in Nation-Building" should really remain the focus of our foreign policy."
Me: Actually, I think that we are unwilling to accept the necessary cost in American lives that this restraint demands, then maybe we should carefully consider our levels of restraint instead. As far as nation building goes, we don't have much choice. Iraq was pretty straight forward in my opinion:
1. "Saddam, declare your weapons or provide proof." Repeat 16 times over 11 years.
2. "saddam, declare your weapons or provide proof, or be prepared to be removed from power." Ignore, sidestep and weasel.
3. The question must be asked: Do we leave him in power, with WMD's and a history of anti-American sentiment and working with relationships with known terrorists, including the ones who killed 3,000+ Americans, or do we do remove him?
4. If the answer is "remove him", then the second question must be asked: What do we allow to grow in Saddam's wake - a representative government or an anarchy?
You see, I don't see any of this as being choices lightly made by the Bush administration. What I find so ironic about it is that so many people blame Bush, because SADDAM refused to follow 17 UN resolutions, in addition to acting in ways that clearly put the US in imminent danger. This whole mess could have been avoided if Saddam simply lived up to any ONE of the SEVENTEEN UN resolutions to declare or destroy.
We did not embark on "adventures in nation building" because we were bored and had nothing else to do. We had to out of the sheer necessity of trying to avoid another 9/11.
You: "Note that I am not "trashing Bush." I am equally critical of the Clinton administration's fascination with overseas troop deployments. Dubya has, in some ways, taken Clinton's policies to the next level -- an uncomfortable thought for many Republicans, I'm sure."
Me: May be. The difference is, Dubyah actually used the saber, while Clinton merely rattled it. Like I've said, since the fall of the Taliban, the fall of Saddam, and since Saddam was dragged from that rat hole in the ground, Libya, Iran and North Korea are VERY cooperative with respect to WMD's. That is not an coincidence.
Thanks for your fair and unbiased reply. I appreciate it.
Don
) here in Bavaria, our Volkswagen Polo needs less than 5 liters gas for 100 km, the Renault Scénic still less than 7 liters (- and this is still too much with the gas at 1.20 Euros per liter - most of this price is the tax that is meant to build and rebuild roads - and develop alternative means of transportation.)
